iconicman

Agreed, and I think we should do it anyway. Even if they back down, they must be brought to heel.

We should do the bare minimum required within our contracts. Refuse to talk with broadcasters, other than the bare minimum. We can of course discuss with broadcasters outside of the game slots to drive our message home. Refuse to take tickets for away grounds. Why support other clubs when they are going out their way to harm us. For any away games that are broadcast by Sky/ESPN we should organise beambacks to Ibrox and support our team there. As a matter of principle would should veto every proposal within the SPL going foward. We should raise court action against the SPL for their unfairly prejudicial application of the 'rules'

This. But the fans representatives have built a nice little life fighting each other, it would appear to the neutral at times they seem to forget what brings them together, Rangers.

We could perhaps count on the support of Hearts Motherwell Dunfermline and ourselves Who would be the 5th to block this? Certainly not Celtic Aberdeen Hibs Dundee Utd St Johnstone St Mirren So that leaves Inverness or Kilmarnock. If we had a strong Chairman and CEO of course we could lobby for these clubs to support us, but rudderless as we are, these chunts see us for the taking. I hope we find out who votes, so that we can repay the kindness shown.

We should all email Ralph Topping, (Non-exec Chairman) and ask that he be the voice of our club and question the validity of the retrospective action of these proposals and that Rangers should be held to the same approach as Motherwell (who the SPL saved from relegation due to Falkirk 'not meeting' the requirements of the SPL for promotion). I have email the following to him: I urge you to consider Rangers interests in this matter, with no voice of their own, no executive management, the fans look to the Chairman of the SPL to be that rational voice, the one urging respect and caution when dealing with league matters. At the very least the rules should apply from the date of assent onwards and certainly not to Rangers in their current situation who, like Motherwell, should be held to the rules in existence at the time they went into administration.

Good catch on the Companies Act, someone should contact D&P and point them to the clause and start legal proceedings to delay if nothing else.

Isn't this just the retort from the SPL10 because we told them to GTF with their 'rebalancing' of the voting structure? Unfortunately with noone at the helm, we can't find out if this is the case and therefore can't counter it. I'd be surprised if Celtic are the ones behind this, it stinks of petty politics more akin to Dundee Hibs.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/closer-to-clarity-but-plenty-of-work-still-to-do-at-rangers.17279710 Unless my browser cache is playing up, his comments re: tax evasion are still there.

Not really, the issue is far more complex than that. He repaid the debt to Lloyds, so Rangers owe him now instead of Lloyds, therefore he has floating charge over the assets of the club. There is a potential ability to force him to waive the loan if he did not honour aspects of the purchase agreement, that would require a court ruling to enforce though. He used Ticketus money to repay Lloyds, which of course comes from the club's season tickets, but Ticketus demanded guarantees from him should Rangers not honour the deal (i.e. admin/liquidation). So ultimately, if Rangers fold, Ticketus come after Craig Whyte for the money. The man is an unscrupulous barsteward, but he is still in effect on the line for the Ticketus money. He certainly has tied up the club in all sorts of loops and wrangles, we can only hope the Administrators can work through it and Craig Whyte/ Ticketus will not stand in the way of the deal. (Caveat: Based on everything that has so far been reported and released)

Agreed, nice to see some balanced reporting. I've emailed him and asked he re-evaluates his comments regarding tax evasion.

Exclusivity just means that bidder gets to go over the books and records with a fine tooth comb, look at contracts, talk to management etc. I.e. get access to everything needed in order to put a final proposal together to buy and a CVA together.

No it was just David Murray. He was 85% shareholder and Chairman, believe it or not, he gets to do what he wants. Your suggestion that everyone should have resigned in protest is laughable and naive.

I don't like SDM, lets get that on the table. However, Rangers problems were caused by the credit crunch and the EBTs. Only one of those were Murray's fault (although yet to be proven against him). Yes we ran up huge debts, but Murray paid them back. There was nothing wrong with that. Our mistake as a club was unfortunately in 2007 when we went on a spending spree, the credit crunch happened, we got pumped out of Europe and found the bank very unsympathetic. Next up HMRC started their investigation, the bank became even less sympathetic and at the same time Murray's empire was in ruins. His property business (like everyone else's) was struggling badly. Metal prices fell through the floor and his bank wanted out. The EBT case was the final straw. The bank and Murray COULD NOT own Rangers IF the tax case came home to roost. I don't like SDM because he created the mess through the EBT system, and then walked away. Make no mistake, if it wasn't for the EBT, Murray wouldn't have sold and we wouldn't be in administration.

There has yet to be a sound argument put forward that suggests that Scotland is better independent of the UK that holds up to scrutiny, even before you get into the religious and head of state conversations. It's shocking that in all of Scotland there are no credible alternatives at present to Salmond. The labour party have very republican views. The Scottish Tories seem embarrassed to be Conservative politicians and that leaves us with the luvvies in the Liberal and Greens. Shocking!

Agreed, newco is a no go. We must keep SC004276!

Craigie designs has to be a tim, look at the apostrophe man, look at it!

A CVA is only the creditors agreeing to a repayment of X pence in the pound for their debts. This can be achieved by either selling the business (i.e. football club) as a going concern to a newco, or a cash injection from a new purchaser. Under the newco route the old company would then be liquidated (See Leeds Utd).

Certainly that is how the club should have been run for a long time and should be run going forward. The absolute last thing we want to do is be back in this situation (ala Portsmouth) in a year or 2 when some bidder's projections haven't come to fruition.

We have 2 liquidation outcomes, 1 is ok, 1 is very bad. The o.k. one would be to agreed a CVA to sell the club into newco as a going concern, we have strong evidence from other clubs (Leeds etc) that nothing will change in terms of our history/ titles etc. The very bad liquidation would be a failed CVA and the club has to be broken up and sold off. Then it's going to be hard to maintain we are the same club as before. As I've said though, I don't believe the second outcome will come to pass unless HMRC want to make an example of us, as they'll end up with less pence in the pound that agreeing a CVA. I still very much want the successful bidder to keep the current corporate shell that was formed in 1899, if for no other reason than to stop the continual bleating about losing our history from the other side.

Mortgaging income is pretty suicidal for anything but a tidy over for a few months. What Whyte did was ludicrous. For all I really dislike SDM, the loan he arranged was amazing, something like £30m at £1m per year, well within our ability to pay. I haven't seen the details of the bids, but I'm surprised at Ng bid having no debt. How does he intend to get around the fact Ticketus own half our ST income for the next 4 years? I would have though every bidder would be doing a deal with them and raising bank debt to pay off Ticketus.

As I clearly mentioned in my post, if we fail to agree a CVA then the assets of the company are broken up and sold to raise cash. It's not going to happen though while we've got interested bidders. A failed CVA and liquidation isn't going to raise more cash than what is being bid at present. Unless of course the taxman is looking to make an example, but I believe they've been given their orders on that score. Now fuck off with your implications, you and I have been here before.

We shall not forget those who would stand on us while we were down, looking for an extra penny. I would boycott all away games until the coward comes forward, then he can reap what he sows (which is nothing, no cash, no travelling support)

Securing the debt on Ibrox or anything else is standard, I'd be more interested in what the payment terms were and whether they were affordable. Rest assured every other bidder will be raising debt and securing it against the clubs assets.

I suppose they could write The Rangers Supporters Trust. Buying shares in [Rangers Football Club plc or successor company/vehicle following current administration process, assuming new owners are willing to sell or that the club continues to survive, and really if liquidation is where we end up then we'll be involved with new founders to keep Rangers going] to bring the club back to the fans. Not quite as catchy though....what do you think?

Why? Should the club not be owned by the fans? Or do you think the club isn't going to be around to buy shares in?